Readers' comments

I fail to see why any Asian country, especially Singapore or China, should have any say on the Arctic and its use as a shipping route. Why should they? As long as international maritime laws are applied equally to everyone they have nothing to gripe about. If this works to Asia's benefit, fine. If it reduces Asia's advantages, that is fine too. Who cares? Seriously.

Talking about sources and facts.
1. 'Second of all, the UK does produce oil, in fact it's the second largest producer in Western Europe with over a million barrels a day in 2011' - This statement deliberately states only A FRACTION of the truth,

Please see the link (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=88) listing the global oil producers as of 1st Jan 2012.
UK, at a production of roughly 1.4M barrels a day, ranks a lowly 3rd after Norway (2.1 M barrels a day) and Russia (10.52 M barrels a day) among the oil producers in Europe.
UK's oil production is less than 1/7th of the top oil producer in Europe (Russia)
Do you still think the Brent crude exchange should be in London when it could very well be in Baku or Doha, or maybe Moscow ?

The central thrust of this article was about 'Asian nations do not have a common territory or common cause in The Arctic, and hence must not be here'. Hence the parting shot in the last line, about the Asian nations having a more disruptive effect on the Arctic, was intended to play up the West's xenophobia about Asians taking away 'traditional-sphere-of-influence resources' of the West.

The examples I provided were 2, among many, where the West does not apply the same principles when it infringes upon others' resources in Asia.

Reciprocity lies in the human gene.
I did not misunderstand the tone of this article at all

I guess brent crude is traded in London because brent crude comes from Britain, just as West Texas Intermediate is traded in the US because it comes from the US.
I don't think there is any Western conspiracy going on with that. Also, Baku, Doha and Moscow aren't global financial centres with associated connections and infrastructure to support such exchanges, so that might have something to do with it.
Regarding "the West's xenophobia about Asians taking away traditional-sphere-of-influence resources", I concede that Europe have in the past been naughty with the whole empire thing, but the situation currently causing jitters in the world economy is the armed posturing in the South China Sea: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21337444 which is a problem between two Asian nations, China and Japan, so in the drama du jour, the West is not a protagonist.

Perhaps before you moralize and try to whitewash your "civilization's" greed, you should learn the difference between the South and East China Seas.

It's amazing how the Economist can use the Arctic to craft another tiresome attack piece on China. Thankfully it makes it clear that the Economist's main consideration is shoring up certain racial hierarchies.

The article clearly refers to "western europe". Russia is generally not considered western europe. I think that is the viewpoint of the author and most readers.
"infringes upon others' resources in Asia?" What are you refering to? Asian xenophobia?

The border between Yukon and Alaska was defined as the meridian 141 W two centuries ago, but now that oil is involved America suddenly proclaims that the border changes direction upon hitting the arctic ocean and runs perpendicular to the coast at that point... That point is a delta 20km wide and changes profile over time!

Throughout my entire life, I've never had to wonder why people accross the world would hate the United States.

It seems that, with the truly global relevance of ice cap melt and east-west trade, the discussion of what to do with the Arctic should be moved to an arena where the entire planet, not only those States with territory bordering the region, can participate.

Except that isn't how international realations work, especially when scarce resources are at stake. Those who control territory will fight to defend it, and those who don't will fight to win it. See China's 'nine-dash line' claim to the South China Sea, this came out of the blue and has no basis in historical fact. It is quite possible China will make a similar claim to the energy under the ice. They who can take it, will take it. "War is the continuation of politics by other means": Carl von Clausewitz

Sorry, the fact that you don't know what you're talking about doesn't constitute an argument. China has primacy in the South China Sea based on over a thousand years of primacy in that region, bolstered by historical evidence and archaeological finds.

Yeah, yeah... historical evidence and archaeological finds - just like in Tibet.
There were some artifacts of Chinese origin just recently discovered in England (I believe in some obscure place called British Museum)... why don't we just wait for China to claim "primacy" there too...

Based on 1000 years of "conquest" of its neighbors, that is. China's outrageous claims are just a continuation of that conquest. One false move and China may find its trading partners making other arrangements.

To add some perspective
1. The Oil exchange of the world, through which all petroleum is traded via USD, is located in London. The UK does not produce oil, and is geographically far removed from the oil producing countries like the OPEC bloc, Venezuela, and Russia.
2. The 'Taliban summit'- where a group of 5 nations, active in arming Islamists to topple incumbent governments in Libya, Syria, are attempting a political barter between Pakistan and Afghanistan- is being hosted in London. These 5 nations, US,UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, do not share any geographical boundaries with Afghanistan. So their takeaways from hosting this 'Taliban summit' is not difficult to comprehend, given the nature of their relationship with Pakistan.

If these are fair, why fault emerging Asian economies (one of them is an economic and military superpower already) for their interest in the Arctic ?

Uh, what?
First of all, there is no "oil exchange of the world". There is a global market where oil sells at different prices at different hubs depending on location and quality. The hub in London is for Brent crude, which is primarily North Sea oil. The main market in the US is West Texas Intermediate. In the Gulf it's Dubai crude, or particular to each exporter.

Second of all, the UK does produce oil, in fact it's the second largest producer in Western Europe with over a million barrels a day in 2011. It was once the biggest producer in the North Sea, which coupled with the importance of London in the commodity trading world is why the Brent benchmark is set there.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to when you say "Taliban Summit". Please provide a source, otherwise I'll assume you're wrong about that as well.

The bigger problem with your post is that you seem to have misunderstood the tone of the article. The Economist wasn't faulting these countries for taking an interest in the article, it was explaining it.

Be nice now! "West Texas Intermediate" is a designation for a particular kind of U.S. oil and is not a "main market." In fact, it is not a market at all. The "market" for "West Texas Intermediate" is "made" on an exchange, like on the CBOT.

"And the melting of the Greenland glaciers could threaten its existence: Singapore’s highest point, Bukit Timah, is only 164m (538ft) above sea level."

And you couldn't let the fear mongering slide this one time could you?

The author is apparently ignorant of the fact that sea level in two different distant places is actually not the same. This is do the odd shape of the earth as well as different land masses enacting their gravitational pulls upon the water.

Further the amount of water in greenland in glaciers is negligible to raise sea level on world wide scale. It is math of the amount of water needed to raise sea levels. Maybe if we were talking Antarctica, but we are not.

The difference is that, during previous interglacial periods, there weren't major powers in a position to make use of the newly opened-up areas. Nor was there technology to exploit the resources becoming available. And finally, there were not major population centers in places where they faced being flooded out, but from which there was no readily available hinterland to move the population to.
.
The basic change in the ice coverage, and the resulting chages in sea levels, are not unprecedented. But the impact on human beings is far greater than it was the previous times that it happened.

Perhaps if China burned less dirty coal rather than continue to burn more, there would be less impact on the Arctic? The U.S. is currently switching to nat gas, greatly reducing its co2 emissions. It can be done numerous ways.

So far, humanity has dealt with having France, Norway and Britain claiming territory in Antarctica under the Antarctic Treaty. The reasons are obviously not geographical, but historical (and, in my view, nowadays not tenable anymore).

So why not let anyone stake a claim in the Arctic, too? No only Singapore and China - but also South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Argentina and Mauritius, for example. Their claim would not be more spurious than Norway's, France's and Britain's in Antarctica. Let's put an end to double standards.

The difference is that there isn't any terra nullius for Chile or Mauritius to lay claim to in the Artic.

Also a big reason that humanity has dealt with the territorial claims in the Antarctic is because the Antarctic Treaty bans military activity and mining (if I recall correctly) on the Antarctic Continent. Also the treaty notes that the USA and the USSR (now Russia) do not recognize any territorial claims in the Antarctic and reserve the right to make their own, if they see fit. This has effectively put territorial claims on ice, pun intended. If that situation were to change, the results in the Antarctic could be worse than the Arctic: the Chilean, Argentinian and British Antarctic claims overlap, and the Falklands Island War actually began with the Argentinian seizure of the UK's South Georgia Island.

Russian legal interests in the Arctic, including legally defned status of the Northern Sea Route, remains a subject for negotiations even though it's far from clear who all the negotiating parties are supposed to be. Both Arctic climate and hydrological factors appear to rule out a single solution. Canada has also a stated position on its North-West passage that unquestionably is within its territorial waters, but is not recognised by the US and other maritime powers.

Russia's stand on the NSR resembles Canada’s position but the US would oppose any Russian claims that key sections of that route lie in its territorial waters. From a long term perspetive all nations with substantive maritime interests should take part in negotiations and future decisions on Arctic navigation routes.

China is very likely to make a claim, just as they have claimed the entire South China Sea (see 'nine-dash line'). With 1.3 billion people to keep warm, China has no choice but to contend for the energy thereunder.

You have nothing to worry about, because unlike the SCS China does not have a 2,000 year uninterrupted history of being the sole seafaring power in the Arctic, only to be seriously challenged by Japan starting in the 1800s.

Worry more about the fact that your ilk have no rightful claim to Greenland, Siberia, Canada, and Saamiland.

Why would there be friction between the US and China on this? China has no claim to these resources and have never hinted that they do. Friction between the US and Russia, or even the US and Canada, is much more likely.

China has decided to conquor and exploit all the oil and gas under the China Sea. Norway and the U.K. exploit the oil in the North Sea. Why should the nations which border the Arctic do anything differently?

"And the melting of the Greenland glaciers could threaten its existence: Singapore’s highest point, Bukit Timah, is only 164m (538ft) above sea level."
.
Much of Singapore is already reclaimed (including the airport, Jurong and the central business district), no more than 2 metres above sea level. The government proposes to increase the population by a third using immigrants, and reclaiming a further 5,000Ha of land to put them on. This reclamation will fill much of the channel between Singapore and Pulau Tekong, an island to the East of Singapore proper.
.
A glance at a map:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Singapore_1994_CIA_ma...
shows that as a result, approximately 30% of the land area of Singapore will be reclaimed, a couple of metres above sea level, and heavily populated.

Since I am sure that someone in Singapore subscribes to The Economist, we can all assume that Singapore will do what it thinks is in its own best self-interest subject to the risks. Go ahead and build at 2 meters above sea level and move people there. I really don't think I have to consider that in my own decision making.